Suchergebnisse

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to address the main reasons that limit Jordanian women from undertaking expatriation, based on the assumption that Arab women's opportunities for international engagement may be compromised by local cultural and institutional issues.Design/methodology/approachA cross-sectoral survey with 60 Jordanian expatriates (30 women and 20 men) located in EU countries and the UK is used to better explore Eastern women perceptions.FindingsCompany's resistance, a lack of support mechanisms, safety in the destination country and family commitments play a major role in hindering Jordanian women opportunities to be assigned abroad, echoing the commonly recognized barriers identified in previous research. Additionally, the culture of the home country and prejudice toward foreigners act as an additional barrier for women professional development.Research limitations/implicationsThe main limitation of this study lies in the data collection instrument, that is, the survey. Larger samples are needed to extend these results. The second limitation is that the potential effects of gender differences cannot be examined because the number of men in the sample was small.Practical implicationsThe findings bring evidence that could be used by organizations to understand the barriers Jordanian expatriate women face and take informed action to tackle them. Meanwhile, more research on Middle Eastern female roles and views is needed to reduce stereotyping against them. Similarly, regional studies can be an opportunity for future development to identify the impact of the regional context.Social implicationsThis research highlights the intertwining of religious and cultural values in influencing Arabic women's experience in international assignments and thus, would enhance readers' understanding of women's career progression in a new context.Originality/valueThis research shows that socio-cultural and political realities need more space in discussions about expatriation. Specifically, the expatriation literature needs more scrutiny and problematizing of the lived experiences of women expatriates from the Global South.

I here defend some of the positions taken in National Responsibility and Global Justice against criticisms by Nils Holtug. I reinforce my suggestion that claims about national membership being 'morally arbitrary' are question begging and try to show how such membership can legitimately serve as a source of special obligations. I examine the claim that the problems involved in constructing a 'currency' of global justice also arise in the domestic context and suggest that appealing to 'welfare' as the relevant currency is not a useful way of responding to cultural differences. Finally, I respond to the hypothetical case of an unequally distributed life-extending vitamin by arguing that the discovery of such a substance would change our understanding of a normal human life, and thereby raise the bar of sufficiency. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractIn this article, we propose a reconciliation between global equality of opportunity and self-determination, two central and seemingly conflicting principles in the contemporary theory of global justice. Our conception of reconciliation draws on the family-people analogy, following the account of familial relationship goods, developed by Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift, on permissible parental partiality and domestic equality of opportunity. We argue, first, that a plausible conception of global equality of opportunity must be able to distinguish morally arbitrary aspects of nationality that require mitigation from morally permissible ones. Second, we argue that a plausible criterion for the distinction integrates a person's normative interests over a lifetime: (i) the interests of a child born into societal circumstances that impact her life prospects; and (ii) the interests of an adult citizen in collective self-determination. Third, we outline an account of 'people relationship goods', as a principled way to circumscribe the permissible scope of self-determination. Fair global equality of opportunity requires mitigating nationality-tracking inequalities, except those that fall within the permissible scope of collective self-determination.

According to David Miller, we have stronger obligations towards our co-nationals than we have towards non-nationals. While a principle of equality governs our obligations of justice within the nation-state, our obligations towards non-nationals are governed by a weaker principle of sufficiency. In this paper, I critically assess Miller's objection to a traditional argument for global egalitarianism, according to which nationalist and other deviations from equality rely on factors that are arbitrary from a moral point of view. Then I critically discuss Miller's claim that there is no culturally neutral currency with respect to which we may reasonably claim that people should be equally well off on a global scale. Furthermore, I critically discuss Miller's claim that cosmopolitanism undermines national responsibility. And finally, I turn to Miller's own sufficientarian account of global justice and argue that it exhibits too little concern for the plight of the globally worse off. Adapted from the source document.